ABSTRACT
The purposes for doing “radical deviancy theory” (or critical criminology) have now clarified to the point where the radical deviancy theorist can no longer remain content with demystifying traditional correctionally-oriented criminology. (Taylor, Walton, & Young, 1975, p. 6, emphasis in original)
The definition of critical criminology is subject to much debate, and there is no widely accepted precise formulation (Stubbs, 2008). Still, following Thomas and O’Maolchatha (1989) and Schwartz (1991), for the purpose of this book critical criminology is a metaphor for progressive scholars who work in a common intellectual tradition with common goals. As Schwartz and Hatty (2003) note, “there are as many types of critical criminology as there are writers and teachers in the area” (p. ix). This collection of original essays is specifically designed to reflect this reality. The Handbook of Critical Criminology exposes readers to critical criminologies that have different origins, use multiple methods, and reflect diverse political beliefs. Yet, as Friedrichs (2009) puts it, “The unequal distribution of power and material resources within contemporary societies provides a point of departure for all strains of critical criminology” (p. 210). In other words, critical criminologists view hierarchical social stratification and inequality along class, racial/ethnic, and gender lines as the major sources of crime (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1996; Young, 1988). Another common feature that critical criminologists share is the rejection of policies and practices such as “zero tolerance” policing (e.g. criminalizing begging on the streets), “three strikes, you’re out” sentencing, private prisons, coercive counselling therapy, and other punitive approaches that view crime as a manifestation of individual deviancy. Rather, critical criminologists regard major structural and cultural changes within society as essential to reducing crime and facilitating social justice. However, especially in the current neo-conservative era, critical scholars know that major economic, political, and social transformations will not soon occur in patriarchal capitalist societies. Hence, they propose
a range of short-term progressive initiatives designed to “chip away” at the inequitable status quo (Messerschmidt, 1986).
